Talk:Časlav of Serbia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An image used in this article, File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Seal of Prince Strojimir mirrored.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why the name Klonimirovic is not included after his prename? In every wikipedia except the portuguese and the english the article is named Časlav Klonimirović.--Orel787 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an annotation. Klonimirović is a patronymic adopted partly in historiography. The (common) name is Časlav. Compare with Igor of Kiev/Igor Rurikovich.--Zoupan 21:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was a dishonest attempt of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which was directly copy-pasted from the same article on Serbian Wikipedia which is notorious for ultra nationalistic even chauvinistic editorial tendencies, constantly violating Wikipedian basic editing principles of NPOV and others. I can only wonder why such blatant lies were kept on this article for such a long time. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• It has already been explained earlier, west of Vrbas (river) to the area of Banja Luka in the sources do not exist as Serbian principality or Serbian territory in 10th century, see sources. This map is WP:OR. Better observing the map, in this time Pagania is also area towards the central course of the Neretva while on this map there is Serbia. It is interesting that parts for Travunija, Zachlumia and Doclea are correct, that is, according to the map from Sima Ćirković's book (The Serbs, page 13), only Pagania, also north of Pagania towards Livno area and area towards Banja Luka are not according to this source. There are no other sources which confirm that Serbian principality from 10th century existed in disputed areas so it could be also WP:FRINGE problem. But looking now at the eastern area towards Bulgaria, as far as I can see, it is also not according to the Ćirković's map. Probably someone wanted include and territory of the Kosovo in that map. We obviously have a lot of problems here. Mikola22 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Wikipedia needs new maps because many of the maps created by specific editors from sr wiki don't correspond to any discussion in historiography. Stari Ras would not become Serbian territory until 1127 and it was secured as part of a medieval Serbian state towards the end of the century. In the late 10th century, it was under Bulgarian control and Byzantine restoration in Stari Ras involved defeating the Bulgarian Empire. There are no Serbian feudal rulers in Star Ras or anywhere to the east of it in this period. @Jingiby: pinging you, because I'm interested in how Bulgarian historiography discusses this period.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps can be used this map? I tried fixing in the original source map the Serbian-Bulgarian boundary using Ćirković's The Serbs (2004) and Komatina's "On the Serbian-Bulgarian border in the 9th and the 10th centuries" (2015). Komatina in English language conclusion on pg. 41–42 says, quote, "Besides that he tells us of the Serbs and Bulgarians as neighbors, he also specifies that the border between them was at Ras. However, there were no clearly established borderlines between the political entities in the Early Middle Ages, and those political entities during that period functioned not on the basis of territorially organized states, but of ethnic communities, whose authority rested upon the people, not the territory ... the borders of the Serbian territory towards the Bulgarians must be understood not as if they point to the exact line of separation, but to the places up to which the areas populated by the Serbs stretched in the direction towards the territory controlled by the Bulgarians. It is clear that the Bulgarians during the 9th and the 10th centuries controlled the Morava Valley, with its important cities, like Belgrade and Morava (Braničevo). Whether the area of Rasa was indeed the easternmost Serbian place at the time is not of primary importance, because we cannot establish with certainty the extant of the territory populated by the Serbs in the 9th and the 10th centuries".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what's the ideal solution because as Komatina says, they cannot be established with certainty. According to Budak 2018 maps, the linked map made by editor Pannonian is both right and wrong considering the Croatian border on river Vrbas - for orientation if we're considering that the river's source is in the lower part and the other is in the upper - in the lower part didn't go beyond the river, but it did in the upper. Region of Bosnia did not include the greater part of Posavina. The borders of Zahumlje are correct on my map. According to G. Bilogrivić "Bosnia i Hum" (2015), pg. 486, the western Bosnian border is uncertain because of a lack of information in the sources, but the northern area (today's Northeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina) partly was within Serbia because there was located the city of Salines (Tuzla). Also, that the other principalities were subjugated by Časlav. According to T. Vedriš "Balkanske sklavinije i Bugarska – Hrvatska u međunarodnom kontekstu" (2015), pg. 590, translated quote, "Serbia ... initially formed ... between the territory of today's Kosovo, Southwestern Serbia (Sandžak) and Eastern Bosnia ... about the eastern border of Serbia with Bulgaria in 9th century ... border was located at Ras (today's Novi Pazar)". In conclusion, would say that this map is an intermediary solution on the borders excluding Raška.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: yes, I agree that we need new maps for the reasons you gave but the main condition must be that these maps must be in accordance with the sources. @Miki Filigranski as for map proposal I have no objections. Mikola22 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, my map probably wouldn't be well because secondary sources say Časlav temporary conquered near principalities. Would this 960 AD map be alright?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The 9th century in general this map seems fine. As 960 AD map implies all the coastal regions were part of Serbia which contradicts. Is it sourced to say al the coastal regions were under serbia? I agree with Mikola22 and Maleschreiber. Also your map seems better aourced than the second one which I believe was contested in the past? It shows Serbia farther into Bosnia than it was. I think that was the other issue. Časlav Isn’t in the Blkans but Czech area no?OyMosby (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski there must be Zahumlje etc on the map, and also flag in right corner(red-blue) is WP:OR. Otherwise at that time flags do not even exist. Mikola22 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: There's nothing in bibliography which implies that this figure expanded anywhere near what the latest edits are suggesting. Up to 1127, Serbian feudal rule didn't go anywhere to the east of Stari Ras.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)